The China Room

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (July 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dodger67 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:The China Room/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello! The China Room, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Hello, I'm Filpro. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Nepalis have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Filpro (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

January 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Gurkha, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Reply 01

I am happy that You  are involved in researches  but it not true that only we Nepalis are Gurkha soldiers. The people from Gorkhaland of India, generally known as Indian Gorkhas also have regiments in Indian Army and British Army. This article must not be discriminatory to one community. 

(The China Room (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC))

You have repeatedly removed sourced content and have added nationalist influenced stuff, please stop.

Maithil article should not be made into a India/Nepal battleground like you seem to be making it. You've removing sourced content multiple times across numerous articles. You added the capital as Janakpur despite one of the dynasties being called "Raj Darbhanga". Anyone with the ability to read can see that a dynasty with the name Darbhanga in it will not be based in Janakpur, you even swapped India and Nepal around in the opening line despite India having a larger population of Maithils. Please stop. Thanks. Damien2016 (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

Hello, The China Room, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

False

I use only this account and sometimes IP adress. There is no use of charging such allegance without proof. You might use your wiki tools to find out. Further, I am sure User:Damien2016 is a sockpuppetry who is repeatedly reverting all of my sourced edits. (The China Room (talk) 06:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC))

Using an IP address counts as using multiple accounts. Please do not log out to edit. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I will seriously take care of not logging out for edit. I did not knew that using ip address counts multiple users. Thank you! (The China Room (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC))

• Let me support what User:King of Hearts said. As it happens, I have one more tool than King of Hearts does, and it confirms IP editing, and that's all I'll say for now. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrator noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding vandalism and removal of sourced content with unsourced content. The thread is Disruptive editing on Mithila related pages. The discussion is about the topic Topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damien2016 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Unblock requests

Unblock requests must be made after signing in from your account. Otherwise, we cannot be sure that it is YOU who is requesting the unblock. Click here to see the history, giving you the option of copying the unblock request rather than rewriting it from scratch. --Yamla (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

The China Room (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I agree that I have repeatedly edited on Mithila related pages because that was under threat from User:Damien2016 as he has been adding all of the Indian influenced text and phrases which has false statements. The previous all source was edited. The Mithila (ancient) page was deleted which has important history of Mithila civilization and redirected to new article Mithila (region) which has pure Indian sentiments.In the page of Janaka, the text national luminaries of Nepal and native Nepali name was continuosly removed and their respective sources. Added unsourced edits on Paag page. For instance, the personal life and the nationality of the person, along with original reference was removed from Udit Narayan aricle. User:Damien2016 did that all persistant vandalism on wikipedia, reverted all of edits wherever I edit and I just reverted or improved those articles on the background of India and Nepal respectively and gave references on most of the places. That does not mean I am sockpuppet of User:Damien2016 or I owe multiple accounts. I have also used multiple ips to edit and login account because I have two sim card, five devices which might have different ips but has only one account under the title 'The China Room' and I am new on wikipedia but I am still learning its terms and policies. Please block User:Damien2016 (may be sockpuppetry or multiple account) who is influenced by Indian sentiments and continuosly involved in editing with expired or no references which consequently hampers India-Nepal relation, in general. (The China Room (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)) Do not edit or remove unblock appeal until discussion is closed

Decline reason:

Both behavioural and technical evidence indicate that this account is a sockpuppet. Even if that were not so, posting an unblock request in which you make it clear that you intend to continue editing to promote a nationalist point of view would be a very good reason to keep you blocked. Also, if you make a post again which pings dozens of editors all at once, meaning that they are all likely to waste time coming here to see what it is about, even after your unblock request has been dealt with, then you can expect to see your talk page access removed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.